'Clear' Evidence Thai Troops Killed Japanese Cameraman

[webfact]

'Clear' evidence Thai troops killed Japanese cameraman

BANGKOK, November 29, 2011 (AFP) - Thai authorities have clear evidence that government troops were responsible for the death of a Japanese cameraman during a crackdown on opposition protests last year, a top official said Tuesday.

The announcement came a day after Thai police said they had summoned former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his deputy in connection with deaths during the April-May 2010 "Red Shirt" demonstrations in Bangkok.

"After investigation it's very clear in the case of the Japanese cameraman (Hiroyuki Muramoto) that it was the act of government security forces. There are eyewitnesses as well as forensic evidence," Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung told the Japanese ambassador at Government House.

"The Office of the Attorney General asked for additional investigation so police summoned both Abhisit and Suthep (Thaugsuban) for questioning on Friday because security officials have testified that they acted on the order of the Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES)," he added.

The CRES was set up by the previous government to oversee the implementation of emergency laws invoked to deal with the unrest.

It is the first time that Abhisit has been summoned by police for questioning over his government's handling of the protests, which ended when army troops firing live rounds stormed the fortified rally site.

Suthep, then deputy prime minister, oversaw national security during the crackdown and became a figure of hate among the Red Shirts.

The kingdom remains deeply divided by the bloodshed. Thailand now has a new government allied to the Red Shirts' hero, fugitive former leader Thaksin Shinawatra, whose sister Yingluck is prime minister.

More than 90 people, mostly civilians, were killed and nearly 1,900 were wounded during the two months of rallies, which drew about 100,000 "Red Shirt" demonstrators at their peak, calling for immediate elections.

Police initially insisted that soldiers were not behind the killing of Muramoto, a Reuters cameraman who was shot during clashes between troops and protesters, as was Italian freelance photographer Fabio Polenghi.

"Under Thai criminal law a security official may be exempted if he acted on his commander's order, but there must be people responsible for the incident who gave the order," Chalerm told Ambassador Seiji Kojima.

"I think this case will be fought through the courts," he added.

Kojima thanked Chalerm for his assurances that the government will establish the truth about Muramoto's death.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-11-29

[TAWP]

Chalerm is once again acting before evidence is presented.

[lannarebirth]

Chalerm is once again acting before evidence is presented.

Most males outgrow it, but Chalerm has always had and continues to have a problem with premature adjudication.

[beano2274]

I thought the investigation before could not ascertain anything, all of a sudden the reds are in power and it has been proven that the military killed him.

Sorry but Chalerm and all his cronies need to start thinking of the people affected by the floods, and sort that out first before messing with other things, or they will have more serious problems on their hands.

[slapout]

For this man to cite clear evidence, to include 'eye witnesses' would indicate his knowledge of the Thai system. Money talks and it can be both ways when it comes to a witness. Surely someone can find a proper fitting place/position for this man.????

[pedro01]

For this man to cite clear evidence, to include 'eye witnesses' would indicate his knowledge of the Thai system. Money talks and it can be both ways when it comes to a witness. Surely someone can find a proper fitting place/position for this man.????

Chalerm? Eye witnesses?

Does that bring a story to mind?

[JohnAllan]

I think Kojima may rest assured that, whatever else, this government will no more establish the truth of Muramoto's death, than the previous administration; least of all with Chalerm at the helm of the police.

[h90]

For this man to cite clear evidence, to include 'eye witnesses' would indicate his knowledge of the Thai system. Money talks and it can be both ways when it comes to a witness. Surely someone can find a proper fitting place/position for this man.????

Chalerm? Eye witnesses?

Does that bring a story to mind?

no that story was already bought out of our mind.

I have seen $$$$ aeh nothing

[Nisa]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

[OzMick]

For this man to cite clear evidence, to include 'eye witnesses' would indicate his knowledge of the Thai system. Money talks and it can be both ways when it comes to a witness. Surely someone can find a proper fitting place/position for this man.????

Deep down, he's a really nice guy. About 3 metres, dirt or water, should be deep enough.

[animatic]

Chalerm is once again acting before evidence is presented.

Most males outgrow it, but Chalerm has always had and continues to have a problem with premature adjudication.

[AleG]

It´s very possible that Muramoto was killed by a bullet from a soldier; then again nobody would have died if the Black Shirts hadn't opened fire across the Red Shirt protest area into the army on the other side. Deaths of unarmed people were not just likely, they were inevitable in the crossfire that ensued.

There's no doubt in my mind that the responsibility for all the deaths on that night is on the militia that went there and set up the ambush for the army.

The insinuation that the soldiers went there with the objective of shooting at people is ridiculous.

[animatic]

I thought the investigation before could not ascertain anything, all of a sudden the reds are in power and it has been proven that the military killed him.

Sorry but Chalerm and all his cronies need to start thinking of the people affected by the floods, and sort that out first before messing with other things, or they will have more serious problems on their hands.

They are specifically distracting from their flood and dysfunctional performances as much as possible. The best defense is turning the publics attention away from yourself ASAP.

And putting the Dems on the back foot, while trying to get Thaksin back, is necessary also, again prestidigitation, while I distract you I can do something else.

An opportunity to fulminate was provided by the Japanese Ambassador coming to talk reconstruction and how the government is going to make Japanese investors happy again.

Edited November 29, 2011 by animatic

[MaiChai]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

Spot on; totally agree. Unfortunatly some people hold grudges. Best reconcilliation is for people to get on with their lives and put the past behind them. Lets all obay the laws and be good citizens.

[noitom]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

It wasn't a declared "urban combat zone", nor did it meet the definition of urban combat zone. It was a random kill shot fired by a supposedly placed sniper shooter at a foreign individual wearing press credentials. Either the sniper fired too early, too late and missed his intended target or was just not qualified to be a sniper and didn't identify the target as a member of the media. In any event, sniper fire into a crowd of civil demonstrators is a troublesome situation. Military command ordering such a kill shot in these circumstances would be subject to a court martial for murder. The sniper would also be subject to court martial as an accomplice to murder.

[SteeleJoe]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

Spot on.

Nailed it in one.

[Mosha]

What about the clear evidence about apg shots from the reds, oh sod it, never mind.

[geriatrickid]

Basically, the position of many in this thread is that it doesn't matter if the Japanese national was murdered. That is not how it works. If anyone thinks that the Japanese government is going to allow the matter to pass, they are incorrect. What the international community is looking for is that people are held accountable and that something is done. I don't blame former PM Abhisit for the murder and I don't think the Japanese government does either. However, what concerns the Japanese government is the initial refusal to address the situation and the former government's unwillingness to investigate the matter. The end result is a negative image for the Thai military commanders and the Democrats. It is one of the reasons why foreign governments are no longer "discreet" in their support of the current administration.

[scorecard]

Basically, the position of many in this thread is that it doesn't matter if the Japanese national was murdered. That is not how it works. If anyone thinks that the Japanese government is going to allow the matter to pass, they are incorrect. What the international community is looking for is that people are held accountable and that something is done. I don't blame former PM Abhisit for the murder and I don't think the Japanese government does either. However, what concerns the Japanese government is the initial refusal to address the situation and the former government's unwillingness to investigate the matter. The end result is a negative image for the Thai military commanders and the Democrats. It is one of the reasons why foreign governments are no longer "discreet" in their support of the current administration.

"It is one of the reasons why foreign governments are no longer "discreet" in their support of the current administration."

Do you have evidence of this?

If not then you have no right to write it as a statement of fact, it's your opinion and nothing more.

There is the other side of the coin g'kid, it's very possible that many governments admire the fact the abhisit was very restrained in his handling of the protests, often with violence started by the reds.

Perhaps you'd also like to make a comment about the image of Thailand as a result of your idols assassination 'shoot on site / no questions will be asked' of some 2,500 fellow Thais.

But I can guess your answer, probably a comment about slamming down hard on the Nation.

[SteeleJoe]

Basically, the position of many in this thread is that it doesn't matter if the Japanese national was murdered. That is not how it works. If anyone thinks that the Japanese government is going to allow the matter to pass, they are incorrect. What the international community is looking for is that people are held accountable and that something is done. I don't blame former PM Abhisit for the murder and I don't think the Japanese government does either. However, what concerns the Japanese government is the initial refusal to address the situation and the former government's unwillingness to investigate the matter. The end result is a negative image for the Thai military commanders and the Democrats. It is one of the reasons why foreign governments are no longer "discreet" in their support of the current administration.

Also arguably correct.

Edited November 29, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[E1717007]

It wasn't a declared "urban combat zone", nor did it meet the definition of urban combat zone. It was a random kill shot fired by a supposedly placed sniper shooter at a foreign individual wearing press credentials. Either the sniper fired too early, too late and missed his intended target or was just not qualified to be a sniper and didn't identify the target as a member of the media. In any event, sniper fire into a crowd of civil demonstrators is a troublesome situation. Military command ordering such a kill shot in these circumstances would be subject to a court martial for murder. The sniper would also be subject to court martial as an accomplice to murder.

sorry, no snipers were deployed. he was killed by stray bullet in a zone battle between royal army and red-shirt "men-in-black".

[scorecard]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

It wasn't a declared "urban combat zone", nor did it meet the definition of urban combat zone. It was a random kill shot fired by a supposedly placed sniper shooter at a foreign individual wearing press credentials. Either the sniper fired too early, too late and missed his intended target or was just not qualified to be a sniper and didn't identify the target as a member of the media. In any event, sniper fire into a crowd of civil demonstrators is a troublesome situation. Military command ordering such a kill shot in these circumstances would be subject to a court martial for murder. The sniper would also be subject to court martial as an accomplice to murder.

Am I misreading your words, or are you saying that an army sniper was specifically tasked to take out a specific journalist on a specific day?

Sorry, cant buy it. Why would the military do this, what reason could they have for such a specific order, what purpose could it possibly serve?

And whether it as a 'declared war-zone' or not is pretty much immaterial, it was clearly very dangerous to be in that particular area, and surely the Japanese cameraman knew that. He took the risk, may he RIP.

[Nisa]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

It wasn't a declared "urban combat zone", nor did it meet the definition of urban combat zone. It was a random kill shot fired by a supposedly placed sniper shooter at a foreign individual wearing press credentials. Either the sniper fired too early, too late and missed his intended target or was just not qualified to be a sniper and didn't identify the target as a member of the media. In any event, sniper fire into a crowd of civil demonstrators is a troublesome situation. Military command ordering such a kill shot in these circumstances would be subject to a court martial for murder. The sniper would also be subject to court martial as an accomplice to murder.

As I recall no bullet was retrieved and experts were unable to even determine the type of bullet from the entrance and exit wound ... yet you know it to be a sniper???

As for Urban Combat Zone ... you can act as silly as you want but there was military and opposing forces fighting in an urban zone and this fight included guns, gas bombs, grenades, rockets, helicopters, tanks and snipers resulting in scores of people injured and killed. Bangkok was probably one of the most dangerous large Urban areas on the planet during this Combat.

[Xonax]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

Any photographer should be aware of the risk, when he is moving around in a war-zone. Innocent civilians (if he can be called a civilian) are being killed in every war, but why not blame the Red Shirt rebels, who actually started the war and among others shot RPG grenades to kill innocent civilians and did what they could to burn down Bangkok. When will they be forced to pay for all the damages?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

It seems Nisa and I rarely agree about many things here on TV... But in this case, I think what's he's saying below is dead-on right.

Frankly, Abhisit's government would have had no reason to target news media at the scene with Army gunfire, and especially a Reuters photographer. And the fact that Chalerm is making pronouncements about who supposedly was responsible after all this time carries about -0 credibility.

I don't know whose gunfire killed the photographer. If it was the Army, it likely was a mistake or accident in a time of great upheaval. If it was the Reds, we'll probably never know who was actually responsible. And as the article correctly points out, there'd be no way to prosecute soldiers or others in the field under the circumstances, unless there was a deliberate kill order or some kind of provable extreme negligence.

And as for eyewitness(es), think about it... In that kind of a situation, someone might have seen the photographer get shot... And someone might have seen Army troops firing their weapons. But it seems pretty unlikely that eyewitness(es) would be in a position to accurately, and with certainty, see that some particular soldier or soldiers firing, as opposed to who knows whom else, were actually the ones that hit the photographer some distance away.

I just feel bad for the photographer's family and the Japanese government, who are being forced to endure the circus that is Thai politics.

It's always a tragedy when innocents died needlessly. The photographer was just there doing his job, trying to capture the news so the rest of the world could see what was happening.

But in the end, the whole affair was a declared illegal assembly, an urban riot by contingents of well-armed red shirt thugs whose stated purpose was to overthrow the government by violence if necessary (apart from the relatively peaceful demonstrators who also were there). They lit the fuse, so to speak, and the end result was people died on both sides.

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

Edited November 29, 2011 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[whybother]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

It wasn't a declared "urban combat zone", nor did it meet the definition of urban combat zone. It was a random kill shot fired by a supposedly placed sniper shooter at a foreign individual wearing press credentials. Either the sniper fired too early, too late and missed his intended target or was just not qualified to be a sniper and didn't identify the target as a member of the media. In any event, sniper fire into a crowd of civil demonstrators is a troublesome situation. Military command ordering such a kill shot in these circumstances would be subject to a court martial for murder. The sniper would also be subject to court martial as an accomplice to murder.

A sniper with an AK-47?

[DP25]

Am I misreading your words, or are you saying that an army sniper was specifically tasked to take out a specific journalist on a specific day?

Sorry, cant buy it. Why would the military do this, what reason could they have for such a specific order, what purpose could it possibly serve?

And whether it as a 'declared war-zone' or not is pretty much immaterial, it was clearly very dangerous to be in that particular area, and surely the Japanese cameraman knew that. He took the risk, may he RIP.

Yup, it serves absolutely no purpose for the army to specifically kill a foreign journalist. It's entirely possible though he was killed in the crossfire between soldiers and red insurgents by accident. He could also have been intentionally killed by the reds to discredit the government. It seemed obvious to me before this even went down that if the red shirts had an opportunity to murder a foreigner, particularly a journalist, and blame it on the government that they would not hesitate to do so.

[JurgenG]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

It should be the new slogan of the democrats " Who Cares ?"

Does it concern us, we, the Bangkok supporters of the democrats ? Does or will it affect our way of life in anyway ? No ? So, who cares ?

There is no moral high ground in their positions as some want us to believe, just, worst than greed, selfishness.

[animatic]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

It wasn't a declared "urban combat zone", nor did it meet the definition of urban combat zone. It was a random kill shot fired by a supposedly placed sniper shooter at a foreign individual wearing press credentials. Either the sniper fired too early, too late and missed his intended target or was just not qualified to be a sniper and didn't identify the target as a member of the media. In any event, sniper fire into a crowd of civil demonstrators is a troublesome situation. Military command ordering such a kill shot in these circumstances would be subject to a court martial for murder. The sniper would also be subject to court martial as an accomplice to murder.

Motive from the government or army is missing. There is no logical reason for the army or their snipers to kill a credentialed reporter on the scene. It can not further any of their goals, and if anything, is detrimental to them.

At worst it is accIdental death by misadventure in a RIOT. Maybe a soldier did accidentally shoot him, fog of battle etc, but certainly the logic of there being any orders to do so is patently absurd.

On the other hand

If it could be used to embarrass or prosecute the government, as they are again attempting now, then the black snipers for the other side would have motive to to shoot a reporter standing in the midst of many soldiers.

Some snipers behind red lines to make the army think the mob is armed,

but one good shot well back BEHIND the army lines, selectively making the army look like it is taking out red rioters, and coincidentally one Japanese reporter. Psychological warfare in a political context.

This would further the long term goals of removing the Democrats as a viable opposition and sidelining many of their and the armies leaders. In theory. It is obvious that the army was targeted with extreme deadly violence, that can NOT be denied. By whom and why is an open question, but those with a motivation to do so are not the army nor the Democrats. So who does that leave... Oh yes Redshirt rioters, their backers and their sub-rosa military black shirts.

Means, opportunity AND motive.

The three basic parts need to convict for murder and conspiracy to murder.

Edited November 29, 2011 by animatic

[JurgenG]

There is also an other reason why we should care.

There are two kind of journalists. The ones who entertain us and fill the blanks between an advertisement for a luxury car and one for a whitening cream. And those who do the real job of reporter, to go where something happen and report to us what they witness so we can later make informed decision when we are asked to chose our representants. They are our ears and our eyes, without them we are blind and deaf. That's why we should care when one of them is killed.

Edited November 29, 2011 by JurgenG